Originally Posted by chamr
…you've really not played any games with significantly less depth than DL? I find that very hard to believe. I've played quite a few, and I'm sure you've played many, many more games than I have.

I don't believe I said I said I've never played a game with less depth. I may have but they had other redeeming features of some sort. A decent story or characters or…you know, furniture. DL doesn't (both redeeming features and furniture).

I'm not a prolific gamer, so you may be wrong about having played more games than yourself - I wouldn't know how to compare. I'm slow and have little time (I see people posting about finishing ME3 the day after release - I'd be surprised if I'm finished in 6 months).

The dungeon level designs themselves are head and shoulders above most crawlers I've played.

Yeah, they're OK, taken as a separate element.

And the multi-classing is silly? You're really going to argue logic about RPG multi-classing? Seriously? If you are, add many, many games to that list, some of which I'd hazard a guess are on your “liked” list. But I digress…)

Most games don't try to combine western, asian and arabic influences in a strange 5-way multiclassing melange - but, yes, logic isn't a strength of multiclassing. Let me re-phrase: Bradley tried to hide the lack of design coherence behind what appears to be a unique 5-way multiclass system, which sounds impressive. In practice, each "class" added one active extra skill (did I say impressive?) and some learning bonuses that might or might not work. Half the House bonuses didn't work and none of the Heraldry worked. None. Repair, scout, identify, alchemy, and steal didn't work. Class pre-requisite checks didn't work.

So, yes, you could create an Adept/Stargazer/Kenjasai/Cabalist/War Witch (<— made that up - couldn't be bothered to remember the exact details) and enjoy the half-dozen skills you would get throughout the entire game, although only three or four would work properly.

Other games offer a half-dozen skills for one weapon type, let alone across so many "classes". In fact, let's be honest - can you really call them "classes"?

Originally Posted by JDR13
You mean worst crpg, or worst game regardless of genre? Dungeon Lords was terrible for a crpg, but I've played a lot of worse games in my lifetime.. especially back in the NES days.

Never had an NES. Only ever been a "PC" gamer (including Apple 2, Sinclair ZX81, Spectrum, C64, Amiga). Apart from some classics (Ultimas, Elite etc) I remember none of the amateur one-man games I may have played. If you consider it a weakness in my comment that I haven't included games I can't even remember, then perhaps it isn't the worst I've played.

But this came out in 2005, which makes it a modern era game. I think it's fair to say professional, modern development is a different animal to some Loderunner rip-off back in 1981. That said, I mostly only play RPGs and I do my research - I don't buy many truly bad games. So, no, it's not the worst game ever made but it is categorically the most incompetent professional development I can recall.